Orissa High Court
Sasanka Sekhar Ratha And Others vs State Of Orissa on 11 November, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 198 of 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code)
Sasanka Sekhar Ratha and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Basudev Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been jointly
preferred by five appellants assailing the judgment and order dated
07.07.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Koraput at Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 162 of 2001 (arising out of G.R.
Case No. 552 of 1999). By the said judgment, the learned trial court
convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections
324/294/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under
Section 324/34 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the
offence under Section 294/34 IPC, in default of which they were
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned
trial Court further directed that the period of detention already
undergone by the appellants shall be set off.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.10.1999 (Sunday)
at about 5:30 P.M., the informant, Raghu Mundagudia, along with
Jagannath Gadaba, Luku Murjia, and Samu Tentulipadia, proceeded
to his land upon hearing from Jagannath Gadaba that five buffaloes
were damaging the paddy crops standing on his Debotajholi land. On
reaching the spot, the informant found the information to be true and
accordingly drove the buffaloes away from his field.
At that time, several villagers from village Routaguda, namely
Bulu Rath, Tulu Rath, Gokula Raut, Kuna Polai, Kanhu Jena, and a
relative of Podu Jena, rushed towards him, being armed with spades,
crowbars, and lathis, and shouted, "Aare Maagiya Gadaba sole sobu
dhano gocho khuai dele, amoro ki chudi bo."
Thereafter, Kanhu Jena attempted to assault the informant on
his head with a spade, but the informant managed to escape. Gokula
Raut then assaulted Somara Mundagudia with a bamboo lathi on his
head, causing a bleeding injury. Bilu Rath assaulted Jagannath
Gadaba with the blunt end of a crowbar on his chest, resulting in
severe swelling and pain over the affected area. The relative of Podu
Jena also assaulted Jagannath Gadaba on his back with a lathi,
causing pain and swelling. Tulu Rath and Gopal Raut assaulted Luku
Mirjia with the blunt end of a crowbar, causing swelling on his chest,
while Balu Rath assaulted Somu Tentulipodia with a crowbar.
Thereafter, Ghenu Mundagudia, Sonia Mundagudia, Hadu
Lenka, Ramesh Sethi, and others intervened and separated the parties.
Subsequently, a written First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged
by the informant at the police station, narrating the aforesaid incident.
Based on the said report, the police registered a case, took up
investigation, and upon completion of investigation, submitted a
charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 148,
324/149, 294/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. On the basis of the material available on record, charges were
framed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial
and claimed for trial, they were put to trial.
4. At this point, it is pertinent to mention that during pendency of
the present appeal, the appellant no.4-Ganapati Jena @ Kanhu Jena
expired. Therefore, vide order dated 05.08.2025, the appeal qua the
appellant no.4 stood abated in absence of any application under
Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by his LRs or next friend. Hence, the
present appeal is confined to the appellants' no.1, 2, 3 and 5.
5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as
nine witnesses out of them P.W.1 was the informant of the case.
P.Ws. 2, 3, and 4 were the other injured witnesses. P.Ws. 5 and 6
were co-villagers who were examined as eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. P.W.7 was a seizure witness, while P.W.8 was the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Boipariguda Police Station, who had also
investigated the case. P.W.9 was the doctor, who had examined the
injured persons on police requisition. No defence witness was
examined on behalf of the accused.
6. The learned trial court after analysing the entire evidence on
record individually accorded the finding of the guilty of the accused
persons and passed a very detailed and extensive judgment.
Paragraphs-7,8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment will give a clear
idea as to how the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence,
which is reproduced herein below for the convenience of ready
reference:-
"(7) On analysis of aforesaid evidence it is clear that P.W.1
Raghu Mundagudia, P.W.2 Jagannath Gadaba, P.W.3 Somara
Mundagudia, P.W.4 Ghunu Mundagudiaa, P.W.5 Loknath
Murjia and P.W.6 Somara Tentulipodia are all injured persons
and their names have been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. Thus,
they are admittedly the eye witnesses to the occurrence. In fact
their evidence have corroborated each other including the
F.I.R. allegation that when Raghu Mundagudia drove out the
Podhos who were damaging his paddy crops suddenly these
accused persons abused him in aforesaid filthy language and
thereafter the accused persons assaulted them by means of
crowbar and lathi. This substratum of the prosecution case has
been proved beyond doubt from their aforesaid evidence
notwithstanding some minor contradictions and discrepancies.
Furthermore the fact that the informant party members belong
to Scheduled Tribe whereas the accused persons were not
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe also have
been fully corroborated by all of their evidence and that too by
the Caste certificate seized by the I.O. during investigation.
(8) However, it appears that there has been further
discrepancies in the language of the abuse stated by the
aforesaid P.Ws. Some have included the word 'Gadava' in the
language of abuse and some have omitted it. It is natural for the
witnesses to be unable to state the exact language of abuse
when deposing before the court after long lapse of time and on
that ground thay are likely to omit the exact language.
However, in such a position the language used regarding
aspersing on the caste should not be held to have been proved
beyond doubt and on the other hand it can safely be taken as
proved that the aforesaid filthy abuses have been uttered by
them aiming at P. W.1. The language used are clearly filthy and
obscene. The ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of
the scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Attrocities) Act that they uttered these abuses knowing them to
be scheduled Caste of Scheduled tribe and intending to
intimidate them by that language of abuse aspersing on their
caste is found to be absent from the evidence on record. On the
other hand, the ingredient of the offence under section 294
I.P.C. appears to have been established from that abuse in as
much as the language is obscene which causes annoyance to the
public and to the person aimed at and the place was a public
place because it is the land where other persons were present.
So even if there not being any oral evidence that it caused
annoyance but the facts and Circumstance of the case and the
language used can determine such an inference.
(9) So far as the assault part is concerned there appears
to be not word to word corroboration by the evidence of
aforesaid witnesses as what to who assaulted whom and by
which weapon just in tune with FIR. However, from their
evidence some part of these details appears to have been
corroborated by their evidence to the F.I.R. allegation, the use
of the weapons lathi and crowbar has been stated by all the
witnesses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
cane and the manner of assault it is natural for the witnesses
not be able to speak like a parrot the details of assault on them
and by whom and by which weapon offence specifically where
there appears to be assault by 4 to 5 accused persons on them
(who were also 4 to 5 in number). In such a circumstance it is
not naturally expected to hear from their mouth the exact and
specific assaults categorically on each. On the other hand, in
my opinion, the evidence adduced regarding the assault as has
been adduced by their evidence could suffice to hold that they
voluntarily caused hurt to this informant and his party men by
assaulting them in the aforesaid manner by means of crowbar
and lathi and furthermore the medical evidence, on record, also
corroborates the existence of injuries on their persons.
(10) Further the I.Os evidence regarding Investigation has also
corroborated the prosecution case in regard to the seizure of
material objects like Weapon of offence. There is also extra
judicial Confession leading to discovery which is admissible
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, One of the accused
persons confessng to have assaulted by means of crowbar and
giving recovery of the same which he had concealed inside his
house and the consequential seizure by police. The confessional
statement has been scribed and has been proved. Thus, all these
evidence indicate direct oral evidence, circumstantial evidence,
recovery of the weapon of offence, existence of the injuries on
the person of the injured persons resulting out of the alleged
assault of the accused persons, motive behind the alleged abuse
and assault on the accused persons to the informant party which
are material factors consisting the substratum of the
prosecution case and appears to have been proved beyond
doubt by the aforesaid evidence on record. My appreciation of
the evidence on the basis of analysis made by me would
convince that these aspects have been sufficiently proved
beyond doubt leaving no trace of reasonable doubt. "
7. Basing upon the above findings, the learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 162 of 2001
(arising out of G.R. Case No. 552 of 1999) convicted the appellants
for the offences punishable under Sections 324/294/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324/34
IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section
294/34 IPC, in default of which they were directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for fifteen days.
The appellants being aggrieved by the afore-mentioned
conviction and sentence, preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Mr. Basudev Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellants
and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State.
9. Albeit, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellants, has
strenuously argued the case on merits and taken this Court through
the evidence available on record. However, after addressing the Court
at some length, he fairly submitted that, having regard to the
protracted judicial process that the appellants have undergone and the
ordeal of trial faced by them, he would confine his submissions to the
quantum of sentence instead of further challenging the conviction.
It is submitted that the incident in question took place in the
year 1999, and since then the appellants have been facing the ordeal
of criminal prosecution for more than twenty-five years, including the
period of trial and pendency of the present appeal. It is further
submitted that Appellant No.1 is aged about 55 years, Appellant No.2
about 63 years, Appellant No.3 about 62 years, and Appellant No.5
about 44 years, whereas Appellant No.4 has since expired, and
therefore, much has changed on the ground within this two and half
decades.
The learned Counsel further submitted that, considering their
age, the long lapse of time since the occurrence, and the prolonged
pendency of the matter, sending the surviving appellants to serve out
the remaining custody period at this belated stage would serve no
useful purpose. It is further submitted that the appellants have clean
antecedents, with no other criminal case, similar or otherwise,
pending or reported against them. Over the years, they have lived
peacefully, well integrated into society, and are presently leading
stable family lives. Incarcerating them at this distant point of time, it
was urged, would not advance the purpose of justice but rather cause
unnecessary hardship to aged individuals and their families.
In view of these circumstances, learned Counsel prayed that the
appellants be extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and/or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
considering the nature of the offences, the long passage of time, and
their personal circumstances.
10. Upon thoughtful consideration of the submissions made and
after perusal of the record, it is apparent that the occurrence took
place over two decades ago. The appellants have already faced the
strain and stigma of criminal proceedings for a considerable length of
time. They have no previous criminal antecedents and are reported to
have maintained peaceful conduct ever since. Having regard to their
advanced age, clean background, and the long lapse of time since the
incident, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for
extending the benefit of probation to the appellants.
Support for this view may be drawn from the decisions of this
Court in Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar
Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of
Orissa2 wherein leniency was shown in similar factual circumstances.
11. In light of the foregoing discussion, while the conviction of the
appellants under Sections 324/294/34 of the Indian Penal Code is
affirmed, instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, this Court
directs that they be released under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of three months, upon their
executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within
one month with one surety each for the like amount, to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during the said period and, in the
meantime, to maintain peace and good behaviour. The appellants
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer
during the said period of probation.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellants is maintained; however, the sentence is
modified in the manner indicated above.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 11th of November, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
